> I don't see at the moment how a multiplexer in Xgl would help a direct
> rendering application. Additionally, a full OpenGL multiplexer is a
> *huge* amount of work / code (look at Chromium), though I guess we
> wouldn't need a full multiplexer.
>> I think Adam is right that the right solution would be a generic libGL,
> and I guess you are right that this ain't gonna happen (ATI seemed to
> have switched to their own forked Mesa implmentation as well, at least
> we weren't able to run OpenGL with a standard libGL with the current
> fglrx drivers the last time I checked).
>
This is partly "our" fault the current libGL suffers from a lack of
vendor extensibility ... Ian has been doing some serious work on
making sure this doesn't happen for 6.9/7.0, and I believe ATI have
been in contact with him to avoid their having to ship a separate
libGL in the future..
Then we'll just have to convince nvidia that they are being silly
using their own one :-)
Dave.